John DeStefano takes on Shelton

As I stated before, on Tuesday night, the people of Shelton were very lucky to have democratic gubernatorial candidates Dan Malloy and John DeStefano attend their meeting. Both candidates made their case to the committee and each answered a wide range of questions from the audience.

In all, it was a very informative meeting and it was a rare treat to hear from both candidates on the same night. Hopefully, both candidates will talk to other town committees on the same night in the future.

In the second part of my reporting from the Shelton DTC, here's video clips of candidate John DeStefano as he lays out his case to the Shelton delegates and town committee members.

1. John DeStefano's opening remarks:



2. Highlight of John DeStefano's presentation in which he describes how democrats in Connecticut can win an election:



3. John DeStefano answers question from a committee member:



4. John DeStefano answers final question from committee members:

Dan Malloy takes on Shelton

(posting was moved so it would be next to the John DeStefano post).
Boy, did the people of Shelton get a treat on Tuesday night.

Ned Lamont, Dan Malloy, and John DeStefano addressed the Shelton Democratic Town Committee and answered a wide range of quesitons. I've received a number of emails from readers asking me to do more coverage of the other primary happening in Connecitcut between Malloy and DeStefano. Since I aim to please, I'm happy to bring you video footage from last Tuesday's meeting.

The first set of video will be highlights from Dan Malloy's presentation. In order to keep the video quality high, I broke the viedeo into three segments; the first is Malloy's stump speech and the other two are Malloy answering questions from the audience.

Tomorrow, I will post highlights of DeStefano's speech and Q&A session. NOTE: I'm trying out YouTube for my video postings. If you experience slowplayback, pause the video and give the computer time to download the video file.

Enjoy!

1. Highlight of Dan Malloy's presentation:


2. Dan Mallloy answers question regarding corruption in Connecticut:


3. Dan Malloy answers question regarding raising money for his campaign.


4. Dan Malloy answers final question and wraps up his presentation.

Ned Lamont site upgrades

Ned Lamont's website has been updated and it's worth checking out.

Dimwit catches my errors

Oh no! I was caught by a dimwit.

Seems like my post about the dolt over CTConservative (you know, that blog that looks like it was created my some kid using FrontPage) had a few typos that he (the dolt) was happy to expose.

There's only one problem, I wasn't the person claiming that my posts are error-free (hell, I catch my errors every day and try my best to clean them up as I go). As any blogger knows, typos are part of the business. It sucks but sometimes it happens and you can't beat yourself up about it, you try to catch them and just move on.

Not Sean, instead he calls people who makes typos dimwits.

Let's take a look at the video tape...

Colin McEnroe just had an interview with Joe Lieberman on his radio show. On his blog, McEnroe had come out against Lieberman, and, ostensibly, the interview was for Lieberman to defend himself. The full interview is found here, and a liberal blog FireDogLake typed up a partial transcript of some of the more interesting parts. I didn't have the time to exactly confirm the transcript, but it seems close enough to get my point across. Take this with a grain of salt though- this blogger knows Hartford as "Hartfod" and the Courant as the Currant. And you wonder why some people think bloggers are dolts. The partial transcript:

Now, it seems like someone is calling someone a "dolt" based on their writing ability. What's even more strange is that Sean made a typo in the same post where he ripping another blogger's typos.

Now, here comes the shameless part.

A reader points out to Sean the hypocrisy in his post by pointing out he made an typo in the same post where he's mocking another blogger's typo...

Anonymous said...

When you are making fun of someone else's spelling and calling them stupid, its best not to have grammatical mistakes in the post. If you do, you look, well, stupid.

But at least fred will remember for eternity!

8:01 AM

Did Sean acknowledge his error at that time...of course not, we're talking about a guy who has a long history of deleting comments he doesn't like. He cleans up his typo, acts like nothing happened, and keeps quiet while other people call the original person who caught Sean a liar.

danbury Dan said...

Sean, i would recommend that you delete anonymous' comments. they are doing nothing but spreading lies. for example, there were no mistakes in your post. why would he say there are? He is a liar. Delete his comments.

2:40 PM
Mii said...

I second that. if anonymous can't substaniate that, the comments are worthless and a shameless misrepresenation.

2:44 PM

Typical.

Now, does Sean break in and say he made a mistake and the reader was corrrect? No, not Sean. Now, I couldn't let this wingnut who has the nerve to call another blogger a dimwit just get away with it right? So what did I do? I took the liberty to expose the hypocrite.

Now, what does Sean do? Does he eat his crow and acknowledge that he was caught? Naw, that you be too much for him. Instead, he has a freaks out and he goes through my post (nice screenshot, looks just as professional as the design of your site) and finds errors in my writing (how shocking).

There's one little problem here, I never claimed that my posts were error-free (I dare anyone to try blogging when you have little time during the day and not make an error), nor did I attack the dimwit's grammar (I know how hard it is to write using the blogger interface because there is no spell check feature and sometimes, you don't have the time to go between MSWord and Blogger). What I did was expose Sean for being a hypocrite because he attacked another blogger's typo while having a typo in his critique of the blogger (and a pretty silly typo if I say so myself) and he simply can't take the fact that he was caught (or that I called him a name while he has a LONG history of doing the same).

Morale of the story (now pay attention Sean): If you're going to attack someone's grammar in a post, you should make sure that your critique is clean of mistakes (or else you might look like a fucking idiot). The fact that you still haven't acknowledge this very point (until today after I pointed your error out to everyone) proves my point. It seemed like some of your readers feel the same but of course you deleted those comments also. Too bad I took a screenshot of those comments but this is getting too petty and there are more important issues to address that require my time.

BTW: Seems like Sean didn't like the fact that he and other wackos were banned from this site (which begs the question, how could I ban someone who claims to NEVER seen my site)...

I'd never been to this fringe blog before, but when the blogger, who called me a "f****** idiot" (nice how accepting and tolerant liberals are, eh?) commented in my blog, I decided to respond.

Well as I said many times, if it's one thing I can't stand, it's trolls who post write stupid comments anonymously and our buddy Sean probably wrote something really stupid which got him banned (boo hoo). Unlike our local wingnut (who is notorious for deleting posts to the point where he removed his comment section for a period of time), I have no problem debating the issues with people who don't agree with my opinion (in fact, I encourage debate), but I will not tolerate is dimwits who troll around my site and act like an idiot. Obviously Sean fit that description since I've only banned three people since this blog started.

And while we're at it, how was Sean banned from the site if he never visited my blog like he so-called claimed? I won't even go down that road because I think I made my point.

Take care Fonzie, enjoy your jump:-)

And now, let's go back to our original programming.

As the racist, idiotic, hate monger runs for senate...

Helen asks "where's the pie?"

You know what Paul Streitz's U.S. Senate announcement lacked?

Pie.

I've always thought "pieing" was a bit dopey, but I'll say one thing about the banana cream number hurled at the side of Streitz's head in September during one of his anti-immigrant diatribes: It made the affair memorable.

No such luck Tuesday, as Streitz read a six-page, single-spaced announcement that could have easily been summed up in two words: Mexicans bad.

Pie!, I thought as I watched him deliver the speech with as much charisma as a kid reading his "What I did last summer" essay. For the love of baked goods, somebody get me a pie!

You go girl! Oh, she's just getting warmed up.

You wouldn't have guessed that just days before, Streitz had met with Republican Party Chairman George Gallo, who had strongly suggested that he broaden his platform.

Economics, Gallo suggested. Health care. Taxes, even. Anything that might, say, appeal to the non-xenophobe types.

And I suppose, technically, Streitz made an attempt - though all roads eventually led back to Mexico. The economy would improve - if we just got rid of all the Mexicans. The heath care mess would be cleared up - if only we could bid adios to the free-loading Mejicanos.

"If the United States is economically destroyed tomorrow, the Mexicans will rejoice," he declared.

Gallo didn't seem surprised when I reported back Wednesday that Streitz had failed to take his advice.

"I guess he's a disciplined candidate," Gallo politely offered. "But that's not how you win elections."

He might not win the election, but we'll have fun joking about the 80 dollar wonderkid.

...and Helen, we'll buy you a pie anytime...as long as you allow us to videotape the throw.

Dimwit, dolt conservative caught trying to clean up his writing

Ah, I guess today marks the "jump the shark moment" for CTConservative as Sean is caught trying to clean up his act. He didn't think I wouldn't notice did he?

Oh, this is way too easy.

It seems like the wingnuts who faithfully read his site (while listening to Michael Savage) are claiming that the guys at CTConservative didn't spell anything wrong in the silly piece about liberal bloggers, Joe Lieberman and Colin McEnroe.

I guess it's too bad I cached the page before Sean could clean it up. Also, knowing that he would pull some silly shit like this, I made a pdf of the site before Sean had a chance to clean up his screwup (and yes, there is a timestamp on the pages).

Come and take a look. Here is a pdf of the blog before the fix-up. The error is in the blue box and you can enlarge it by clicking on the image:
click to enlarge

And here is the pdf of the page after Sean cleaned his screw-up.

click on image to enlarge

The morale of the story is simple: If you're going to attack someone's grammar in a post, you should make sure that your critique is clean of mistakes (or else you might look like a fucking idiot). I guess Sean attended the same grammar school as Ben Domenech. Maybe Sean can give Ben a job.

I just email my buddies at firedoglake (I think they'll get a kick out of this). Why should I be the only person who has all the fun.

Lieberman on Channel 61: Troops in Iraq till 2009 (at the least)

CTKieth called me last night and pointed me to this story that ran on FOX61 last night featuring Sean Hannity's favorite Democrat. Although the video speaks for itself, third party at Lamontblog gets the money quote from Joe.

We're talking about 2006, 7, 8... that's three years. And I believe that a lot of very good things can happen in three years in Iraq that ideally would allow us to remove every American soldier who's there today.

Three more years? Three words come to my mind when I hear crap like this from Joe: out of touch.

Clearly, this is yet another reason voters in Connecticut should give Joe the boot and vote for Ned Lamont.

(major hat tip to ctkeith and La Resistance for catching this news clip)

Blame the liberal media

Ah, I can hear the wingnuts now, the liberal Hartford Courant used an angry picture of Lieberman and they are not being fair to Joe.

Case in point, check out this post from this wingnut who called left-wing bloggers dimwits.

One of the problems with blogs is that anyone who can type, regardless of how intelligent they are, can be a blogger. Usually this isn't a problem, but with some of the stuff left-wing bloggers have been saying about a recent Lieberman interview, you have to wonder what the bloggers are really thinking.

Colin McEnroe just had an interview with Joe Lieberman on his radio show. On his blog, McEnroe had come out against Lieberman, and, ostensibly, the interview was for Lieberman to defend himself. The full interview is found here, and a liberal blog firedoglake typed up a partial transcript of some of the more interesting parts. I didn't have the time to exactly confirm the transcript, but it seems close enough to get my point across. Take this with a grain of salt though- this blogger knows Hartford as "Hartfod" and the Courant as the Currant. And you wonder why some people think bloggers are dolts.

Oh boy, there you go again Sean. Pretty harsh from this guy huh? Attacking another blogger because of a typo seems somewhat silly (FYI: The misspelled word "Currant" was in firedoglake's partial transcript and typos are quite common in partial transcripts) but since he raised the point of attacking another blogger's grammar, we'll skip commenting on the stupidity of his post (which is full of the usual lies and insults we expext from this rabid nut) and take a closer look at his "perfect" writing ability.

Let's take his quote one step at a time. The first part of the sentence is undeniable; Bush will be serving for three more years. The second part is the controversial part, but only for the liberal ignoramuses who think that they can balance the fine line between supporting our troops yet criticizing the war. When the leader of liberalism, Bill Clinton, calls the war "a big mistake," there is no support no the troops. How does it help troop morale to call their comrades' deaths a mistake?

Hmmm, there is no support no the troops? Can you say typo?

Note to Sean: don't comment about the speck in someone's eye when you have a log jammed in the side of your head.

And by the way, who's the dolt now?

UPDATE: Thanks for the spellcheck Sean. Too bad I never said my stuff was error-free nor am I unable to acknowledge mistakes (unlike yourself).

Colin responds

Colin McEnroe responds to Joe Lieberman's breakdown.

Joe Lieberman was a guest on our show today, and he was very, very angry at me. In particular, he was offended and insulted that I took the following quote "out of context" in a column about him:

It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

The quote, he said, came from a speech. Read the whole speech, he said angrily, several times on the air. Several times, also, he urged me to notice that he encouraged the Republicans to adopt a similar sense of forgiveness in the very next line.

So I did read the speech. And what did I find?

The speech, overall, is an exercise in self-massage disguised as bipartisanship. It congratulates Lieberman for being Lieberman. It urges everone else to be ...more Lieberman. Lieberman is right. Everyone should read this speech, so they know what he really means when he calls for bipartisanship. He's really calling for an uncritical endorsement of his own behavior.

This is getting too easy.

NOTE: Sam Seder will be playing the Lieberman/McEnroe interview on the Al Franken Show today on Air America Radio. If you having a hard day at work and need a good laugh, listen to the show online by clicking here.

LIEBERMAN UNHINGED

WHAAA..the bloggers are not being fair...whaa, whaa!

This guy cries louder than a baby. Time out Joe, now go sit in the corner.

Joe: This quote is totally out of context. You might of got this from the bloggers who like to do this.

Colin: No, actually..actually.

Joe: If you read the whole speech..it's below your standards.

Colin: Sena...senator, I got this from the New York Times.

Who else laughed with Colin at that moment? Simply priceless.

Welcome to primary season Joe. Having a hard time defending your record?

Seems like Joe went on Colin McEnroe's show on WTIC and completely flipped out over McEnroe's recent Courant op-ed piece.

It seems like he doesn't like blogs either.

You have to hear it to beleive it. I thought Joe's head was going to explode.

UPDATE: My Left Nutmeg, CT Local Politics, and Firedoglake offer their views on Joe's meltdown.

Students for Lamont

A new Ned Lamont based blog hosted by college students launched and is pretty good. Check it out.

Democratic candidates stump in Shelton

Boy, did I hit the jackpot tonight!

I went to the Shelton Community Center tonight hoping to catch Ned Lamont speak to the Democratic Town Committee (note to Lamont campaign: it would be nice to inform people if there is a schedule change. Ned spoke at around 7:00 to 7:15 and by the time I arrived, he was gone. I would be pissed if it wasn't for the positive situation I put myself in). Although I missed Ned speak, to my surprise, I was able to hear both Dan Malloy and John DeStefano give their stump speeches to the committee. I had no clue that these guys were going to be there tonight (which is probably my mistake) and I was able to video tape both candidates answer a wide range of questions. I was very impressed with what I heard from both candidates (and yeah, I know I slammed them in a earlier post but they both addressed my concerns so I feel good again).

Now, I just came back from Shelton so there is no way I will be able to post the video at this time but I'll get everything up by tomorrow.

What a night indeed!

Images from the Anti-War Rally

Click here to see all the photos from last week's rally.

Malloy and DeStefano campaigns get ugly

Seems like these two guys know that the various town committees are choosing their delegates for the convention this week. With a governor with an approval rating over 70 percent, it would be wise to go after Rell (which isn't that hard if you think about it) than go after each other.

No wonder these two guys aren't receiving much coverage in the press or blogs.

From the Hartford Courant

In the sharpest exchange of their campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, John DeStefano Jr. and Dannel P. Malloy accused each other Monday of betraying bedrock Democratic ideals.

DeStefano, who reintroduced himself to voters by formally declaring his candidacy after two years of campaigning, accused Malloy of joining Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell in supporting a regressive tax structure.

"No sharper distinction exists between me and my two opponents for governor than their determination to repeal the estate tax," DeStefano said. "I believe it is a fair and progressive tax, one that affects only the top 2 percent of Connecticut's wage earners."

The Malloy campaign responded by releasing a piece of opposition research: excerpts from testimony DeStefano delivered years ago in which he appeared to favor limits on binding arbitration for public employees, a position that is anathema to his union supporters.

Each campaign then accused the other of misrepresenting its candidates' positions, giving a jolt to a contest that had been notable for the two Democrats virtually speaking with one voice in criticizing the Rell administration's record of job creation.

The clash may have been inevitable as DeStefano, mayor of New Haven, and Malloy, the mayor of Stamford, enter a new phase of their campaign. Today marks the beginning of a seven-day period in which Democrats will select 1,607 delegates for the nominating convention in May.

At the convention and during the primary campaign that is all but certain to follow, the two mayors must appeal to organized labor and liberals who favor a progressive tax structure, both important parts of the Democratic constituency.

"This is a different part of the campaign now," DeStefano said. "And, in this part of the campaign, drawing distinctions for voters is very important."

"This is a real horse race," Malloy said.

Again, with a governor with a high approval rating, the best these two Democrats can do is fight with each other?

These two guys should of debated each other weeks if not months ago and we shouldn't be at this point wondering who is going to be the Democratic candidate. Somewhere, Gov Rowland-Rell is smiling right now while her administration and cronies are getting away with crazy stuff under the radar.

State elections enforcement Director Jeffrey B. Garfield, under fire for giving Gov. M. Jodi Rell's campaign manager access to a confidential draft settlement of his agency's case against several of her top appointees, was at the Capitol Monday to lobby against a planned legislative hearing to investigate his actions.

In a parallel development, a high-ranking Rell administration official made phone calls Monday to the top leaders of the Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate in hopes of persuading them against the investigative hearing, Capitol sources said.

A spokesman for Senate Democrats questioned the appropriateness of the phone calls by Rell's budget director, Robert Genuario - and a Democratic legislative leader indicated he would not back down on the hearing.

"I think it's fair to say that the hearing will take place," said Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the legislature's elections committee.

Caruso and his committee co-chairman announced Friday that their panel plans to hold a hearing within weeks regarding Garfield's actions. Garfield sent confidential information in a Feb. 10 e-mail to Rell campaign manager Kevin Deneen and let him act as a go-between in negotiations to settle charges of fund-raising violations by 16 top Rell administration officials.

The 16 officials ultimately settled the cases against them on March 8 by paying $500 fines and signing agreements with the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Keep up the great work guys. You're doing a fine job holding the governor accountable for her administration's shady actions. Stepping up the pace for delegate points is understandable but I can't see how the fighting (at this point in their campaigns) helps the party as a whole.

No wonder the Democrats haven't won a gubernatorial election in in twenty years...

Lieberman's team is getting desperate

Joe Lieberman's campaign team must be desperate.

It seems like Joe's ridiculous campaign manager Steve Smith is taking every chance he gets to go after Ned Lamont while attempting to paint Lieberman as a faithful Democrat. I say attepmt because saying Joe Lieberman is a faithful Democrat is like saying I have blue eyes and blond hair.

Take a look at Smith's laughable comment in today's Stamford Advocate story in which he was asked to comment about Paul Strietz's entry into the senate race.

"It shows Republicans do not want Joe Lieberman in the U.S. Senate because they know he's a strong, loyal Democrat, professing Democratic values," Smith said in a phone interview. "It also probably shows the Connecticut Republican party is cheering on Ned Lamont and applauding his strategy of tearing down Senator Lieberman."

Okay stop laughing and get off the floor. Now everybody knows that Joe Lieberman's approval is higher among Republicans than Democrats in Conencticut but Smith wants us to believe that Republicans are cheering on Ned Lamont.

Maybe I'm wrong and Smith is right. Let me do alittle research and take a look at some polling numbers.

Despite strong opposition to the war in Iraq and low approval ratings for President George W. Bush, Connecticut voters approve of U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman 62 - 24 percent and say 64 - 24 percent that he should be reelected, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Republicans say give Democrat Lieberman another term 75 - 18 percent, while Democrats favor his reelection 59 - 29 percent and independent voters back him 61 - 24 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

[...]

"While Sen. Lieberman has lost support among some Democrats, probably because of his strong support for the war in Iraq, he helps make up for it with support from Republicans..."

Hmmm...Republicans in the state dislike Lieberman? Seems like Smith is alot like President Bush, they don't read much. Let's see what the bloggers on the other side think about Joe Lieberman.

Voters are content with Lieberman. They may have some problems on several issues, but most centrists appreciate Lieberman's independence and commitment to constituents...

Now for anyone who has read the silly (and poory designed) blog CTConservative knows that those guys can't say enough great things about Joe Lieberman while doing all they can to trash Lamont.

Okay, I think you get the picture now (not like you needed me to point it out to you). Republicans love...no they adore Lieberman and will anything to keep their guy in office. Comments like this from Smith are simply dishonest and goes to show how seriously they're taking the Lamont challenge.

Desperate indeed.

Leader of hate group runs for Senate

Oh, happy, happy, joy, joy! My dreams have come ture!

Paul Streitz, leader of the "anti-everybody but white people" hate group Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control announced today that he's challenging Joe Lieberman for United States Senate. I can't tell you the amount of material I have on this wingnut and I'm going to have so much fun sharing what I have with everyone.

I'm sure those in the Republican Party are happy. and they can thank Mark Boughton for Streitz's popularity.

The first Republican willing to undertake the daunting task of unseating Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., will formally announce his candidacy Tuesday in West Hartford.

Paul F. Streitz, a Darien businessman who unsuccessfully sought his party's nomination for Senate in 2004, will challenge Lieberman on a platform primarily opposed to immigration from Mexico.

"It is time to get the troops out of Iraq and put them on the Mexican border," Streitz said in a statement. "Thousands of Mexicans and other illegal aliens from other countries come into this country every day. This is an invasion, not immigration."

Streitz, who calls Lieberman one of "the most traitorous U.S. senators" because of his support for policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement, will have a tough time beating the incumbent senator.

According to its most recent federal campaign filing, the Lieberman campaign has so far raised more than $5.9 million for Lieberman's re-election.

Streitz, who is trying to raise $20 contributions from 1 million Americans, has so far netted $80 in the effort, according to his Web site.

Republican State Chairman George Gallo said the party would field a candidate against Lieberman, but Streitz is the only Republican to put his name forward so far.

Gallo could not be reached for comment today, but Streitz's name is not on the party's list of 2006 candidates featured on its Web site.

MexDonaldsBoy only has 80 bucks to his name. Too funny! What's wrong, your followers are too poor to help you out. Sounds like you collected 1 dollar from every one of your wackos who attended the silly anti-immigration forum in Danbury earlier this month (FYI: The hate group only attracted 80 people out of a city of 80,000.

Street theater at it's best

Although I'm still working on the videos from yesterday's rally, I had to share this presentation from the HartBeat Ensemble with everyone.

These guys did an excellent parody of Jeporady featuring our favorite members of the Bush administration (and everybody's favorite senator, Joe Lieberman).

These guys stole the show and had the audience in stitches. Watch the video below.

1500+ people in Hartford gave Joe Lieberman a piece of their mind

click on image to enlarge
I think it's safe to say that none of the people who attended yesterday's rally are voting for Joe Lieberman.
WHAT AN IMPRESSIVE RALLY...what crappy coverage from the media including Channel 8's reporting which was just awful.

Like I said eariler, I'll post a full report including my comments on the crappy Channel 8 story later.

Live blogging from Hartford

I'm on my way to Hartford to attend the anti-war rally. I will provide updates on the big event throughout the day and hopefully I'll be able to post some pictures and video footage.

Ned Lamont made an appearence on Beyond the Headlines which can be seen at La Resistance. Hopefully, I'll be able to post the video later today (in a rush to get to the capital city right now).

Stay tuned...

UPDATE: Note to self, forget about live blogging when it's freezing outside. With everything that was happening today (my goodness, what a great turnout), there was simply no way I could live blog from Hartford; to put it quite simply, by the end of the rally, my hands were numb and I was in no condition to download all of my photographs and video footage.

I promise to post some images before I call it a night.

UPDATE 2 03.19.06: Yeah, yeah, I know I promised to post some images last night...sue me.

Here's the deal. I shot alot of video yesterday and it's taking quite a bit of time editing and compressing all the footage (hey, I'm not Media Matters or Crooks and Liars, I'm a one man team). Since I spent a majority of my time of the video, I didn't have a chance to edit all the photrographs.

Since it seems like I was probably the only blogger there (shame on everyone else), I really feel bad about taking so long but I'm kind of picky about the images I post. To make a long story short, I'll have some stuff posted later today.